Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I too have a serious problem with the way the motion is worded. The implication here seems to be to do something, and I agree with my colleague: what would that be? Would that be to take the issue of concern to court and receive a judgment? Chances are there would be no representation in that foreign court. So what do you do?
I have concerns with the motion's wording “to recognize the constitutional duty”. Well, that is just completely in error. There is nothing in the Constitution to suggest that the Constitution applies. There's nothing to recognize. A better form of wording would be to “institute a constitutional duty”, but then that would be rewriting the Constitution, and I suppose that could be set aside for another day.
One of the witnesses here has referenced section 6, in particular subsection 6(1), which states that “Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter”--not return, but enter. Of course, it means they have the right to enter, but if they are being prohibited from leaving a foreign country by that country's national law, they will have the right to enter Canada only after that national law has been dealt with. There's no constitutional duty here for Canada to take its charter of rights internationally and somehow have this charter of rights supercede the laws of every country on earth.
Also, for the follow-up section in here--